-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
October surprise
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
VictimOfGrief
Banned
meh.
CharlieDigital
Banned
VictimOfGrief said:
If we strike:
1) Increased insurgent activity in Iraq
2) Increased insurgent activity in Iran
3) Hezbollah attacks Israel
4) Oil = $100
5) ...
6) Profit
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'll believe it when I see it. It seems like people love to make these claims, and when they don't come to frution they are never called out.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/bombing-iran/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/20/221619/711
PhoenixDark said:
Hey, moron, the Pentagon confirmed the deployment. The article, if you read it, simply talks about the deployment and the possible ramifications of said deployment. It isn't an article foretelling a nuclear armageddon.
For PhoenixDark: "Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21. "
As for Seymour Hersh's reporting, well, I think the operative word for anyone with a brain between their ears would have to be "planning." There is no specific date given and the Bush Administration didn't even deny the story.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Incognito said:
No need for namecalling. I haven't called you any, nor do I plan on starting.
My point remains: people continue speculating about the possible outcomes of various situations, and jumping to conclusions. And when these conclusions turn out to be false, the story disappears. Was Ritter "lying" about June, or was it bad information? Or did plans simply change? In the end it just seems strange that anyone would make such claims considering how huge these issues are.
VictimOfGrief
Banned
CharlieDigital said:
1) Iraq is not an extension of the United States of America and it's established states. If increased insurgent activity in Iraq means that the Iraqi special forces/police are not doing there job then so be it. Whether or not we strike, there will always be bloodshed there before, during and after the US has occupied Iraq.
2) Iran is a total wash. The president is trying to be like Richard Gere and bash the president on a political platform with "hollywood" style phrases or buzz words that bash/demean the president as a person, not really his agenda. Trying to deflect attention away from his nuclear program and bashing the Bush administration for faulty information, lies and deception. didn't anyone pay attention when clinton was president?
3) Hezbollah is a drug-wasted splinter cell of Al-Queda that quite frankly is like a group of rag tag boys with toys. They claim their attacks in the name of their holy god and will die for a belief "greater than their own". However if they attack Isreal, say goodbye to Beruit for good and expect Isreali's to assilimate that part of the region to drive out the fighters (into :lol Iran of all places where they started).
4.) Oil @ $100 a barrel is something the Republicans will not let happen. Hell if it reaches $95 a barrel they will be forced to tap the emergency reserves. Mute point IMO.
5.) I'll see your ... and raise you ....
6) Profit - To who? You think war is a business transaction? (MGS4 would say otherwise) but seriously, I can't see the American people supporting the US attacking Iran unless it's with Nukes. That being said, the international community would be in an uproar because the "US" isn't supposed to have Nukes. Regardless, the US doesn't profit from Iran going away because you can bet your nutsack that any and all terrorist organization is chomping at the bit to take control of Iran at one point or another.... pre-US attack / post-US attack or no attack at all.
It's Iraq all over again and I'm willing to bet the President, as stubborn as he is will not make that same mistake twice during his presidency.
PhoenixDark
Banned
VictimOfGrief said:
I agree. I do not believe Bush is such a supreme idiot that he'll walk into this hornet's nest. This isn't Iraq, which has been a cakewalk compared to what Iran could be like.
His administration might want to hit Iran, but it's simply not feasible right now. If it does happen, it's not going to be some unilateral strike.
This is akin to the liberals saying there was in imminent draft (their October surprise) in 2004. Now it's "Bush is one phone call away from war!! OMGWTFOMG"
Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they lay their cards on the table. They slowly build the case (usually through public statements from Condi) before they attack. All recent statements have been remarkably non threatening to any kind of action.
They just don't have the political capital (here or abroad) to even contemplate such actions.
Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they lay their cards on the table. They slowly build the case (usually through public statements from Condi) before they attack. All recent statements have been remarkably non threatening to any kind of action.
They just don't have the political capital (here or abroad) to even contemplate such actions.
CharlieDigital
Banned
CharlieDigital said:
Yah, Afghanistan is what I meant. And why that concerns the US is because our troops are there as well...several thousands. Increased insurgent activity in both Iraq and Afghanistan would increase our casualty rates. I think an attack would also draw more Muslims to The Dark Side and increase the number of insurgents dramatically.
Not only that, if more Iraqis die because of our incursion into Iran, it is another burden of error.
Profit? All of the Good Old Boys in the war making industry are profiting. Selling arms and bombs to Israel, building new machines, fixing damaged machines, servicing machines, no-bid contracts for engineering projects...shit it's a ****ing gold mine. It's pay day every day.
Callo Merlose
Banned
Incognito said:
omg rite said:
:lol :lol :lol
I hate to admit it, but this is why I love GAF.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
ToxicAdam said:
Yeah, like how they slowly explained why the US government instituted illegal wire tapping. Or why they're running secret torture facilitaties. Or... OH YEAH, they lied about that stuff.
Another month goes by, more hand wringing by hysterical liberals (see thread above).
Ronito prophesizes doom here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122265&highlight=october+surprise
But it's not done. The new "pre-emptive spin" is that a 2 week delay on the Saddam Hussein trial will now somehow save the mid-terms elections for Rove and Co.
Oh liberals ... if the Saddam trial is the savior of the GOP, maybe you don't deserve to win.
Ronito prophesizes doom here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122265&highlight=october+surprise
But it's not done. The new "pre-emptive spin" is that a 2 week delay on the Saddam Hussein trial will now somehow save the mid-terms elections for Rove and Co.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610270011
Oh liberals ... if the Saddam trial is the savior of the GOP, maybe you don't deserve to win.
PhoenixDark
Banned
So was this bad intelligence, or were they just lying about the October suprise?
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
ToxicAdam:
I'm just gonna take a wild guess you're a republican fundamentalist, right?
I'm just gonna take a wild guess you're a republican fundamentalist, right?
taken widely out of context it seems considering the part about the Eisenhower Strike Group.
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=112076&ran=121835
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=112076&ran=121835
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
ToxicAdam said:
How come? Are you just bitter, or is there something to your hate?
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
ToxicAdam said:
Are those the first lines in some awkward country-song? :/
It really stems from childhood
I had a small dog that was kicked
By Michael Dukkakis
But, in fairness
He was just upset that I
Was getting drunk with Kitty.
Yeah. Seems just about right. Let's load up the ol' gun and take a ride with the pickup.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
**** you america, stop starting wars.
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
well if the gays get married in NJ then there might not be a United States left to invade Iran.APF said:
Fragamemnon
Member
Merely deploying a strike fleet to an area notorious for trouble is a total non-issue. I mean, we could have them patrolling off the coast of Belgium or something but that doesn't make much sense.
If they are preparing for anything, it would be a surgical strike against certain targets, most likely with the assistance of the IDF Certainly not a war, though, and any strike would have to have a far more reaching plan in place regarding how to get the rest of the free world to look away or be apathetic while it happens.
If they are preparing for anything, it would be a surgical strike against certain targets, most likely with the assistance of the IDF Certainly not a war, though, and any strike would have to have a far more reaching plan in place regarding how to get the rest of the free world to look away or be apathetic while it happens.
- Status